Viruses are not microbes and have no infectious capacity
Dr. Stefan Lanka
June 2021
The well-known German virologist Stefan Lanka assures us that viruses are neither microbes nor do they have
infectious capacity, so Covid-19 could not have been caused by a coronavirus such as the alleged SARS-CoV-2, the
existence of which has not been proven. This is what he assured us during an exclusive video interview in which he also
explains that it is time to question everything that Virology, Microbiology and Medicine say about viruses. Moreover,
he asserts that the tests used for Covid-19 are a scam, that the figures of supposedly "infected" and "killed by" are
unrealistic and that vaccines are not going to solve anything and are also very dangerous.
Born in Langenargen (Germany), the marine biologist and virologist Stefan Lanka studied at the University of Koblenz,
obtained his PhD in 1989 with a thesis on virus infection in seaweed, his main discovery was precisely the isolation of the
Ectocarpus silicosus virus present in seaweed, and is known worldwide for claiming that neither HIV - to which AIDS is
attributed - nor the hepatitis and measles viruses have been identified, isolated, characterized nor their genomes sequenced. In
fact, in November 2011, he challenged on the Internet those who claim that the measles virus exists to show him a single
published scientific article describing its characteristics and, in particular, its components and diameter, stating that he would
pay 100,000 euros to anyone who could present it to him. A few months later, a medical student named David Bardens sent
him a letter with six papers that he believed together met his demand for the money. Lanka responded by telling him that these
articles did not contain what he had requested and did not prove the existence of the virus, and refused to pay anything,
initiating a legal process that ended up in the Bundesgerichtshof - the German Federal Court of Justice - which would agree
with Lanka (we reported it in the report that appeared in issue 202 with the title Incredible: the existence of the measles virus
has not been proven!)
The ruling would so irritate the establishment that the multiple lies and disqualifications about Lanka that were already
orchestrated when he denounced the AIDS farce were multiplied and even the current "verifiers" of the "official truths" have
signed up to distort the facts again and to disqualify him. A good example of this is that if you read what is said about him on
Maldita.es and above all on Wikipedia - one of the platforms controlled by today's professional disinformers - you can see the
"bad slime" of those who have made the page about Lanka. Many people are unaware that Wikipedia allows anyone to create a
page about someone else, say what they like about it, and the person concerned cannot delete it or correct the mistakes. And
anyone can do so anonymously, because in fact it urges those who write on it to publish under a pseudonym and not identify
themselves. And now the reader can continue to trust the reader can continue to trust what appears on Wikipedia, a portal
whose credibility - at least in the field of health — is today, in our opinion, NULL.
We end this brief introduction by pointing out that Stefan Lanka published last December together with Ursula Stoll a book
entitled Corona: Weiter ins Chaos oder Chance fiir ALLE? (‘Corona: Further into chaos or opportunity for ALL?’ Ed. Praxis
Neue Medizin) in which he explains the Copernican turn that his convictions about microbiology and, of course, about virology
have undergone in recent years. It is a work that at the time of writing had not yet been translated into Spanish and in which
Lanka has had the courage to question his own scientific achievements and to make a radical critique of the current foundations
of Microbiology, Virology, Immunology, Medicine, Genetics and, in general, the conception of life as it is generally
considered in academic circles. Criticism that covers much of what is being said about Covid-19, the alleged SARS-CoV-2,
antigen tests, PCR tests, the numbers of "infected" and killed by" and the supposed safety and efficacy of the vaccines that are
being massively inoculated.
Having said that, I transcribe without further ado - after being translated from German - the interview that my colleague
Antonio Muro did on my behalf for Discovery DSALUD Television through Zoom, with the questionnaire with which I
provided him.
Those of us who have been following your evolution for years have been able to see that yours has not exactly been an
easy path and yet you have been moving forward regardless of the difficulties, allowing yourself to be guided by the
coherence of your findings and assuming a role that is not only critical but also self-critical, something that should
govern all scientific research but unfortunately is not the case today. Can you begin by explaining something about your
training, your experience, the work you have been doing and briefly comment on this evolution?
-There are many reasons that have led me to my current position but I will try to be as concise as possible. What influenced me
in the first place were my childhood experiences. I was born and grew up on the shores of Lake Constance and now I live there
again. I was lucky enough to meet a man whose job it was to monitor the quality of the water in the lake and who noticed how
badly polluted it was. Well, one of the most important rules that have guided me in life was given to me by him: "If you ask life
the right questions, you will get answers as long as you remain humble and show it respect". He lived by that principle, always
showed great respect for life and was a very dedicated person. A great example for me. That's why I was shocked to see how he
was savaged by politics when he tried to publicize his investigations into the poor state of the water in Lake Constance. That
made me decide to study biology instead of chemistry.
It made me realize that the life of the planet was threatened. I understood that the lake could still regenerate with the flow of the
rivers that flow into it - like the Rhine - but that this was more complicated in the case of the seas and oceans, which are the
ones that ultimately end up receiving all the pollution. The death of the seas and oceans would lead humanity irreversibly to
extinction, since 70% of the oxygen we need to live comes precisely from there. In short, in the end I chose to study Marine
Biology and that was the beginning of a series of happy coincidences that led me to where I am today.
One of the first books that had a decisive influence on me was Das Feuer des Heraklit (The Fire of Heraclitus: Sketches of a
Life before Nature) by Erwin Chargaff, who was the first critic of genetic engineering. Years later I met him in person and
learned a lot from him; among other things that if something coincides with the mythology and philosophy of the ancient pre-
Socratic Greeks, although this is no guarantee that it is right, it is an indication that it might be. I didn't understand it at the
time, but today I know what he meant. In short, he was a good teacher who gave me a lot of guidance and revealed to me that if
one goes into a subject critically, one will be rewarded with much more knowledge.
Well, something important for understanding what is happening with virology and medicine is the imposition of materialistic
thinking in the scientific sphere. Chargaff illustrates this well in his book Die Aussicht aus dem 13 (The view from the 13th
floor). In it he imagines having a conversation with a physicist who, he tells him, could prove that the creatures of fables -
nymphs, fairies, goblins... - do not exist, to which he replies: "You cannot prove scientifically that something does not exist".
And he adds: "Jf you rob a child of the power of imagination you will destroy the basis of humanity". This is a true and
important statement and it is perfectly applicable to what we observe today. The coronavirus crisis is the pinnacle of 2,500
years of restrictions on thought by materialism, something that Plato already realized very precisely and criticized openly when
he said that Greek physicians did not understand the diseases they faced because they excluded the soul from their analyses.
According to him, they sought to repair the affected organ without seeing that the origin of the disease came from the soul.
Plato describes two medicines: one for people who are not free - the slaves - in which the doctors try to suppress the symptoms
with medicines and another for free people who are treated by curing the soul.
One day I met Fritz Pohl, an Austrian professor who told me that the official version of HIV and AIDS did not "add up". He
had heard that Robert Gallo, when he was competing with Luc Montaigner to be recognized as the discoverer of HIV, had
committed fraud and lied about his work. At the time I was still a student who had had the opportunity to work in a laboratory
and using his findings on nucleic acid discovered a structure in seaweed that I mistakenly defined as "a harmless virus". In
reality, as I will explain in detail later, this structure was what is now called a "giant virus", which is really nothing more than a
minispore similar to bacterial phages, which are also phages. So what I isolated was actually a "giant virus" but I classified it as
a "harmless virus”. Today we know that mini-spores arise when the subsistence conditions of certain simple organisms - such
as the bacteria or algae I worked with - become unsustainable. And in my case there were some prerequisites. I had great
references, orientation, motivation and concern for the oceans and in the field of marine biology I thought I had discovered a
"harmless virus" but, at the same time, my Austrian mentor was telling me about the inconsistencies about HIV and AIDS. It
was then I developed the ability to combine different areas of knowledge to deepen my understanding of very different topics.
In fact I also always turn to history because it is important to understand where concepts and ways of thinking come from.
The most important event took place in 2000, when I met Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer. Between 1995 and 2000 I regularly visited
Barcelona to give talks and lectures and it was there that we met in person. Up to that point I had heard and read about his
discoveries, but as a person I found him somewhat disturbing and his theories, which I knew very little about, seemed to me
too simplistic and mechanical. However, when I contacted him in 2000, faced with a case of cancer, he immediately invited me
to talk to him and that is when he explained to me the truth about viruses. And from that moment on it was clear to me, without
a doubt, that he was right. Hamer was the first to erase fear from biology and medicine. Thanks to that scientific support I had
an answer to many of the doubts I had about science. For many years I was able to say "No, there is no such thing as a
pathogenic virus. It is wrong. Immunology is wrong. Genetics has been disproved" ..... But I didn't know what disease was. For
5 years I couldn't answer the question "What is disease? And when I met Hamer I finally found the answer.
-You were in fact known to your colleagues for publishing the discovery and isolation of the Ectocarpues Siliculosus
Virus in the 1990s, although you did not come to public attention until you denied that HIV had been isolated. You
subsequently said the same about other viruses - such as hepatitis and measles - and the controversy grew. And in
recent years you have published a series of articles that go much further, no longer denying one or the other isolation
but completely dismantling what is understood by viruses. Do you really postulate that there are no pathogenic viruses
that cause or generate diseases?
-The answer is clear: yes. But the road to that clear answer was arduous. It all started with HIV at the time when AIDS was on
everyone's lips and I stood up and said, "No, there is no virus here". But I couldn't say what was making people sick. Sure, I
could talk about mass drug poisonings and things like that but a lot of symptoms were unexplained. It was a complicated time
but I gradually realized that - as had happened with HIV - isolating a viral structure misinterpreted the death of the cell tissue in
the test tube as evidence of the presence of a pathogenic virus in it and then built up the chain of viral genetic material. I have
seen this approach in other viruses. My most important teacher in this field has been the Perth (Australia) researcher Eleni
Papadopulos-Eleopulos. She and her team formed the so-called Perth Group and said: "Look, we have read all the
publications - it is impossible for one person to do that - and in our opinion there is no evidence of a virus anywhere". Their
group specialised in the HIV virus and nothing else; they say one virus is enough for a lifetime. It became clear to me that if I
only criticized the postulate of a single virus and did not mention the rest, I was reinforcing the virus theory. And if I did not
challenge the conceptual framework from which that theory springs, I was reinforcing it. At the end of the day, everything
stems from the theory of cellular pathology according to which we are born from a cell, there are only material interactions and
it is a "poison" - a word that means "virus" in Latin, by the way - that makes us sick. That is the scenario since Virchow coined
this theory in 1858 although he was only "a child of his time”.
You have to go back 2,500 years, to the time of Plato as I said before. His colleagues Democritus and Epicurus are the ones
who established the current Theory of Life, the theory of Atomism and the theory of Evolution. With some reason they said:
"We want a theory without spirit, without gods, without consciousness because religions always wield fear before gods.
Therefore, we envisage a purely materialistic theory of life that does not arise from belief". What they could never have
imagined is that this same theory would eventually become a religion, the cruelest religion of all time. If I think that I am in
this world only by chance and when I die there will be nothing left of me and everything is governed by chance, the result is
obvious: greed. To be successful, to enjoy what I can, to have no consideration whatsoever. If my life is meaningless and
nothing of me will be left, then I will fear death. The result is what we are witnessing today. Because the coronavirus crisis is
the accumulation point of 2500 years of materialism that arose, among other reasons, because the ancient Greeks did not
understand the Ayurvedic texts as they were written in Sanskrit. By erasing the soul from their system, they developed the
"theory of the four humours" or "humoral theory" on which everything else has been built.
In short, if one looks at what virologists do, one concludes that no, there is no such thing as a virus. Knowing the history we
understand that it is in fact a wrong model and that the correct one was censored. Later I will discuss in detail the 7 points that
virologists make to support their conclusions and how at each point they refute themselves. Dr. Hamer's system of knowledge
in itself refutes Virology as a whole. Once I understood his theory, the veracity of which anyone can check with themselves, I
knew that it was impossible for a virus to assault my body. Do viruses exist? No. Simply because they cannot exist. You look
at what virologists publish and you realize that they refute themselves. They act in an unscientific way because they never
carry out control tests of their experiments, which is the minimum necessary to be able to affirm that something is scientific or
not.
-In other words, you argue that viruses are not microbes, are not pathogenic and have no biological structure, but can
they have an impact on us by working in symbiosis with our bacteria and cells, as the American biologist Lynn
Margulis postulates? Can viruses then be said to be more like fragments of DNA or RNA that transmit information?
-Lynn Margulis and marine biologists have determined that in the sea there are enormous amounts of nucleic acid associated
with the presence of so-called giant viruses. This biomass is even larger than all the life we know of on Earth, in humus or in
the seas. It's amazing: the sea is full of nucleic acid! Delving into the theory of life, I discovered the main role of nucleic acid.
Margulis was an important reference for me, but she gives nucleic acid a role that it does not really have. The main function of
nucleic acid is to release energy and, secondly, it is a component in the production of a few proteins and enzymes. Ninety per
cent of proteins and enzymes are generated by the human body without genes, i.e. without blueprints. For the remaining 10%
the body does have "blueprints" or "templates". However, the belief that viruses have played an important role in evolution is
wrong. Life generates its own nucleic acid and it is important because it is the primary energy generator of cellular metabolism.
It is a fact that incredible amounts of nucleic acid exist in the sea in the form of giant viruses. Gunther Enderlein recognizes
that this is a fundamental step because it is how life materializes and becomes visible.
How do phages, exosomes, extracellular vesicles and the so-called giant viruses differ? Are all these molecules aspects of
the same reality, phases of what is known as pleomorphism?
-Bacterial phages - which do exist - are mini-spores as postulated by Gunther Enderlein, one of the most important scientists of
pleomorphism. According to his view, more developed life forms are formed from simpler ones, but these more complex forms
can regress and become simple again. For example, so-called "giant viruses" are mini-spores of uncomplicated organisms such
as seaweeds. I have said before that I isolated a "giant virus" from seaweed. These mini-spores contain a nucleic acid fragment
of a certain length and a certain genetic sequence that never changes. And with bacterial phages we are in the same case: they
contain a genetic sequence that is always the same. Both structures exist, they can be easily isolated and biochemically
characterized and photographed, and the length of their genetic material can be determined. Of course, such material can be
sequenced. However, this is not the case for suspected pathogenic viruses. Virology has not been able to carry out such a
procedure with a virus, they just interpret that "it must be so".
Look, phages and giant viruses are indisputably part of pleomorphism. There is a substance that is a fundamental part of the
realization of life and that is the so-called "water membrane" or surface tension of water. This membrane, which is wrongly
defined as the 4th phase of water, is the substance that water itself creates when it comes into contact with gases, solid surfaces,
dissolved substances or when whirling movements are generated.
From this substance, life is created. It is a substance of high density (1.4 kg per litre), liposoluble and viscous like a gel. We are
made of it and it envelops nucleic acids, tissues, organs...
As for the term exosome, I don't like to use it. If I move into the realm of cellular theory it is correct, but what is not correct is
that exosomes contain nucleic acid. You only have to look at what virologists do to artificially construct a genome from
millions of tiny pieces to know that there is nothing specific that the body generates in large quantities during a disease that can
be called an exosome. The term exosome, from the view of the cellular theory postulated by Virchow, might make sense, but
his theory has already been disproved.
Virchow, in 1858, ignored and displaced the theory of the three embryonic germ layers developed by Robert Remak in order
to assert that life comes from cells and diseases from them by generating the veins of the cells. But Dr. Hamer "rediscovered"
the theory of the embryonic germ layers in 1981 and made them a fundamental part of his theory.
-As far as we know, you don't seem to agree with the Microbial Theory of disease postulated by Louis Pasteur. It was
he, Robert Koch and others later on who came up with the theory that most so-called "diseases" are caused by
microbes — first bacteria, then fungi and parasites, later viruses and prions - that attack our cells, tissues and organs
like invading armies, and that the body must use its own molecules to fight them, which would constitute the army of
defense: the immune system. This is clearly a warmongering view. What is your opinion on this?
-This theory is based on the Greek conception of life. The ancient Greeks developed a truly warlike culture. They were
constantly at war with each other and saw life that way. Moreover, if one conceives life as mere material interactions, one can
only understand disease as a defect, as something evil originating from within life that can assault an organism, that consumes
and degenerates it but brings nothing to it. This materialistic view conceived 2,500 years ago was sanctioned by the
Enlightenment and led to Virchow's Theory of Cellular Pathology according to which life is random, full of material
interactions, and disease comes from an incorrect interaction between molecules that leads to mutations, damaged genes...
And this applies to the case of the coronavirus. So it is not about one virus or the totality of viruses. What is at stake is our self-
perception as human beings, the way we see ourselves: are we a mere product of chance whose health or illness is at the mercy
of a war between poisons - internal or external - and our supposed immune system or is there perhaps another explanation for
the emergence and sustenance of life? This is the fundamental dilemma and I can assure you that the first option has been
refuted! It forces us to resign ourselves to war because there is no other explanation. First it was parasites and then the idea of
disease was brought to the level of bacteria - after all, bacteria could be seen under the microscope! They soon realized,
however, that there were diseases in which no bacteria seemed to be present, and so they assumed that in such cases the cause
must be a poison that makes you sick, a virus. This idea has been around for a long time, but it is not correct. There is a better
explanation of life and that is Dr Hamer's. He gave us the turning point. He gave us the turning point with what we could call
the New Testament of Biology. He delivered us from evil. In his new conception of life and nature it has no place.
He showed that a trauma - which he called a biological conflict - if it lasts for weeks, months or years, leads to a series of
reactions that are defined as "illness" but are immediately resolved when the original conflict is resolved. For example, finding
a job if you have unexpectedly lost the one you had, if you receive news that your child's life is in danger but ultimately
survives, or if you change your place of work or residence. You then enter the Healing or Repair Phase. When this is the case,
in most cases the active phase organ damage - whether it was affected by cellular proliferation or cellular destruction — is
reversed either by necrosis or regeneration. All this sheds light on the truth. And one concludes that no, the conception of
health and disease as a never-ending war is not correct because the pattern that Dr. Hamer discovered is always reproducible.
-Louis Pasteur - who was a chemist, physicist and mathematician but not a doctor or biologist - also created the dogma
that the body can be taught to fight pathogenic microbes by confronting it with small samples of them. Thus vaccines
and the myth that they prevent diseases whose microbes are inoculated into us were born. Many experts - both then and
now - consider this to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated theory that has been accepted but never proven. What
do you think?
-Pasteur is a complicated character. He contributed a lot on issues such as milk preservation and wine production.
Pasteurization is still used today. He gave farmers and the food industry very useful knowledge, but he was a child of his time.
He was Robert Koch's competition and it all ended in what I call "the Pasteur tragedy". In a way he knew that vaccines were
useless and that the theory of poison and counterpoison was not correct. The experiments he carried out on animals were
extremely cruel. He tied dogs and sheep to poles and injected liquids supposedly containing the rabies virus directly into their
brains. The mechanical procedure itself drove the animal insane and caused it to writhe and drool; in other words, it supposedly
recreated the symptoms associated with rabies, but they were actually caused by the procedure, not the contents of the liquid.
Princeton University professor Gerald Geison analyzed his diaries and concluded that Pasteur knowingly manipulated and
lied.
For example, to publicly demonstrate that his vaccine against the anthrax bacillus was effective, he poisoned animals that died
in front of the public. He then claimed that he had previously vaccinated other animals and when he inoculated them with the
bacillus they did not die. But of course he didn't poison them! It was this sort of thing that came to light with his diaries and is
more than enough reason to discredit the Infection Theory that he helped so much to cement. In journals such as the New York
Review of Books, people like Max Perutz went so far as to write that fortunately Pasteur fooled everyone because if he hadn't,
the infection theory would never have got off the ground. And in this he is right. Only in this way could the globally dominant
Infection Theory prevail to this day.
There is a book published in 1999 by the Max Planck Institute on the History of Virology, which describes the different
schools that existed and how in 1954 the school that understood the virus as a genetic material prevailed and is still accepted
today. Pasteur died sad and with an evil secret.
-You go so far as to say that the thesis proposed by Virchow a century and a half ago that life develops from cells is
incorrect and that it arises directly from tissues. Can you explain what you are postulating? Does life not arise in this
case from the union of sperm and ovum?
-Thousands of sperm are needed to fertilize an egg. People think that just one sperm is enough, but it's not. It takes a lot of
tissue to get the process going. Embryology is well documented. A sphere of up to 64 nuclei is created which, after a process of
invagination, gives rise to the three embryonic germ layers that form the different organs. Only later do the cells appear at the
edges of the organs or in the bone marrow where red blood cells are produced. But organs - such as the skin or the brain - are
not structured in a cellular way. What you see under the microscope when you put dead organic tissue under the microscope
after applying chemicals and dyes is a laboratory artefact. I have explained this in detail in three articles I published in 2019 in
my journal that I would be happy to translate and publish in your journal because I consider them important.
Virchow really wanted to become a parish priest, but his father forced him to study medicine because sooner or later he would
inherit his heavy debts. He sent him to Berlin to study the only medicine there was, which was military medicine. Bad training
and a bad reputation. Neither rich nor poor wanted to be treated there. He took an active part in the Revolution of 1848 and the
political demands and was in fact present on the barricades and in the revolts. During this period, he made very interesting
proclamations such as the fact that epidemics were not the result of contagions but of the deplorable sanitary conditions of the
population, who lived among insects, with no means of heating, no sewage, poorly fed.... He wanted the state and medicine to
join forces to improve the quality of life of the people, but the revolution was repressed and Virchow was arrested. However,
he must have been protected by someone influential because not only was he released but he was appointed professor in
Wiirzburg and ten years later he was given the directorship of the Charité Hospital even though he was not the most qualified
candidate.
And then, suddenly, Virchow appears out of nowhere, proclaiming the Theory of Cellular Pathology and censuring the theory
of embryonic germ layers and concluding that the indivisible unit of life was the cell. He presumably arrived at this idea during
his anticlerical period and took it from Democritus and Epicurus. He did not know much about cell theory as such. He took it
from Theodor Schwann and from there came the fatal misinterpretation that the cell is nothing more than water wrapped in a
membrane. I recommend watching the film On the back of a Tiger or studying the contributions of Harold Hillman
[translator’s note https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/index.html], who refuted this idea of the cell in the 1980s.
It is the tissues that play a major role because they are what our organs are made of. Dr. Hamer discovered that the four areas of
the brain - the brain stem, the cerebellum, the white matter and the cortex - are connected to the different embryonic layers. In
other words, they "control" the different organs in such a way that in the event of a trauma, a biological shock, a specific part of
the brain will be affected and will send a signal to the specific organ it controls. This knowledge validates the tissue theory and
invalidates Virchow's theory of cellular pathology.
-We know that you do not accept determinism in genetics and you defend the importance of epigenetics. To what extent
do you believe that DNA is determinant?
-DNA has a different function than is commonly believed. It is the resonator and stabilizer of metabolism. Enveloping the
nucleic acid is the substance I mentioned, the water membrane, which arises from water itself and turns back into water when it
releases energy. It is the fundamental substance of life. Aristotle called it ether and the ancient Indian cultures called it prana.
We absorb it with our breath. It is a thick substance — you can see it in the humidity of the air - which when it dissolves
becomes mist, when the air cools it becomes raindrops, and when it releases heat and energy and falls it is reconstituted again.
DNA plays its part in this process.
The determinism in which we find ourselves has its roots in our history of estates and hierarchies. It stems from the attempt to
justify the supremacy of one and one's lineage, the right to exercise power over others, to have a certain role from birth. In the
article Erbgut in Auflösung (Genetic inheritance in dissolution), which I published in 2008, I refute this predominant
conception, which also prevails in genetics. The nucleic acids in each nucleus are constantly changing independently of each
other. What virology is trying to do, which is nothing more than to make a larger viral genome out of small genetic fragments,
has already been attempted by genetics. First they tried sequencing large DNA fragments in order to assemble them into a
chromosome, but it didn't work. Then they resorted to shotgun sequencing, which consists of randomly dividing fragments of
DNA and creating by alignment (sequence alignment) millions of fragments the continuous sequence that represents the
chromosome. But this is a mental construct, as no one knows how long a chromosome is or what it looks like. In short,
Chargaff warned that the prevailing scientific theories could not be used to understand reality and would only lead to
destruction.
And I will tell you that knowing about his 1978 book prevented me from pursuing a conventional career and receiving a large
scholarship that would have taken me in a different direction. I mentioned Chargaff in front of the board that was to determine
the winner of the scholarship, and he is a taboo name in the academy. After all, he said that we had to be very careful not to
intervene in life and he ruled out any genetic engineering project. I was promptly declassified and it was better that way. I
realized as soon as I left the university that nothing constructive could emerge within its walls. Its walls were built on dogmas.
Ivan Illich, another of my references, already said that as soon as knowledge is institutionalized, it turns against people and
against knowledge itself. There is no more beautiful feeling than to feel secure with life, to feel part of it and with a goal to
pursue.
-Let's talk about virus isolation and purification. Just type the word isolation into any Internet search engine and you
will find a multitude of articles in which the authors claim to have isolated viruses. Are their claims true? In fact, after
the Wuhan team claimed to have isolated and sequenced a new coronavirus that affected respiration in a similar way to
SARS-CoV and named it SARS-CoV-2, there have been many more researchers claiming to have found and isolated it.
What can you tell us about this?
-I can summaries that in 7 points but first I have to explain how a local panic in Wuhan turned into the global coronavirus crisis
through the mediation of German virologist Christian Drosten. At the end of December 2019 a Chinese ophthalmologist
living in Wuhan spread a rumor that seven people were isolated in his clinic that were allegedly infected by a SARS virus. The
doctor was really just informing people close to him to protect themselves, but the message leaked out. Panic soon spread and
people began flocking to hospitals at the slightest sign of cough, asthma, bronchitis or pneumonia. The authorities then
pressured ophthalmologist Li Wenliang not to talk about the situation. China is an iron-fisted dictatorship and he knew he
would be sent to a gulag or killed if he failed to comply. Thanks to Dr. Hamer's knowledge, we now know that such a fear for
physical integrity can trigger a biological shock that affects the lungs in multiple ways and can lead, in the repair phase of the
conflict, to bronchitis. Well, on 10 January 2020, the doctor developed symptoms of bronchitis and was quarantined at his
parents’ home. The parents also started coughing and he was convinced that a 92-year-old patient had infected him the previous
day. However, the woman did not seem to have any symptoms, nor did the other patients he treated. Even his parents were
quickly cured.
Li Wenliang started taking antiretrovirals for treatment and trying all kinds of viral tests, but the results were negative. Finally,
on 29 January, he tested positive for one: the Christian Drosten test! Believing he was going to die, he made public both the
test result and the police document - which he signed under duress - stating that he had finally tested positive and it was a
SARS virus. The news caused panic.
Drosten had entered the scene a few weeks earlier, as soon as he heard that a possible outbreak of the SARS virus had been
detected in China, but he began to develop his detection test before the sequence of the alleged "new virus" had even been
made public! How? By using sequences allegedly associated with the old SARS-CoV virus of 2003. It was on 10 January that
the Chinese authorities made public the genetic sequence of the virus they were supposed to have found. It was the genome of
what they understood to be a harmless virus found in bats. At the same time, however, Drosten sent his first tests to China from
Germany, and although its primers had nothing to do with those in the published sequence, they were used and the first
positives appeared.
In response, the Chinese authorities began to isolate all pneumonia patients, their families and hospital staff who had had
contact with the first 49 patients considered infected up to 20 January, and determined that no one had been infected! The first
conclusion reached was that the virus was not very contagious but was transmitted from animals to humans and it was
determined that the source of infection may have been a meat market in Wuhan which was closed and disinfected.
Drosten's test sent from Germany had come into the hands of a friend of his who had already made his fortune during the
SARS-CoV crisis of 2003. He boarded a train from southern China bound for Wuhan carrying the first two positive Drosten
test results. The suspected infectees had not been to Wuhan so they were assumed to have been infected by someone in the area
but the press conference he gave in Wuhan sparked chaos. The Chinese authorities were discredited in the eyes of the public
because the test showed that the SARS virus was highly contagious from person to person and Li Wenliang came to be
regarded as a "hero". The city of Wuhan was placed under strict quarantine in order to control the panic. It must be said that
this was as far as the Chinese government went. The other quarantines were geographically very limited and there were never
many positive cases reported. From the beginning they understood that the detection tests were useless from the beginning and
they intentionally made little use of them. This is why their infection figures have remained so low. In Europe, on the other
hand, they opted for massive testing, national quarantines and the destruction of the economy. This is the context.
But what do virologists do? You only have to read any of their publications. In particular, you have to go to the Materials and
Methods section to see that virologists are wrong on seven fundamental points, as well as acting unscientifically by not
carrying out control tests; and on top of that, they are self-refuting.
Point 1. Virologists inadvertently kill cells in the test tube. They remove the tissue sample from the feeding solution and apply
cytotoxic antibiotics. In other words, they starve and poison the cells to death. And once the sample has been "prepared" in this
way, they apply tissue that is supposedly infected with the virus, but the truth is that the original tissue will die and decompose
even if sterile material is applied. Well, since 1954 it has been assumed that cell death is due to the presence of the virus. And it
is understood that the virus is present in the test tube because the tissue has been taken from an infected patient. Then, from
that cell and tissue mass, genetic fragments are obtained and conceptually sorted to obtain "a viral genome". However, the
relevant control tests to see if the healthy tissue dies and decomposes without adding anything are never carried out. Well, from
this dead organic material, vaccines are made; if the whole material is used, they are called "live attenuated vaccines" or if only
certain proteins are used, "inactivated or killed vaccines”.
Point 2. Virologists assume that the virus is in the millions of tiny fragments of genetic material in that mixture of dead cells,
so they pick out a few and sort or align them to build - using computer programs! A complete viral genome that they have not
actually found. In fact, neither in cell cultures like these, nor in saliva, nor in blood has a complete viral genome ever been
found. They construct it artificially. So it is the first team of virologists that constructs a viral genome that determines what it
looks like, and all the others repeat the same alienation process so they get a result that is 99.99% identical to the reference
genome, the one that was supposed to have been "isolated" the first time. In short, they find what they want to find! That they
never find a complete viral genome and have to construct it that way is a clear indication that, quite simply, there is no such
viral genome, there is no virus.
Point 3. The millions of fragments of genetic material that the tissues and cells under study release at death contain a great deal
of material from microbes, many of which are not even known. The organism constantly generates new RNA independently of
DNA, which was not thought possible. However, virologists who follow in the footsteps of the group that first "sequenced" a
virus simply replicate the procedure and arrive at the same result. That is, they take as a reference, as a template, the original
sequence - when it is nothing more than a theoretical and mathematical construct -, find the same pieces and reach the same
conclusion. Nobody performs the following control test: from the same database of genetic material, instead of being guided by
the reference template, they should try to construct other supposed viral genomes with the same information; for example,
genomes of other RNA viruses such as HIV, HIV-like viruses, HIV-like viruses and HIV-like viruses. RNA viruses such as
HIV, measles or Ebola. But, of course, they don't do that. It should be added that the idea that the death of cells in a test tube is
caused by infected material being added dates back to 1954 and was the brainchild of Nobel laureate John Franklin Enders.
Point 4. Electron microscope photos taken by Microtomy are supposed to be of viral particles but what they actually show are
typical components of decaying cells and tissues. The particles in the photos presented to us as viruses have never been
biochemically characterized, nor isolated. Then they also disprove themselves. They show pictures of particles but do not work
exclusively with them because they do not isolate (separate) them from the rest.
Point 5. In the Petri dish, the virologists shake and suck up the contents of the decaying cells and tissues with fine needles and
inject them back into the Petri dish. The content of this liquid is a mixture of proteins, fats, torn tissue and cell fragments and
chemicals. Well, the absorption of the liquid with the needle and its re-injection causes tiny bubbles to which a dye is applied
when microscopic images are taken, and these pictures are then published as if what appears in them were viral particles.
However, they are not biochemically characterized to show that they actually contain a viral genome.
Point 6. None of the microscopic photographs claiming to show a virus have been taken from samples of blood, saliva or other
body fluids of any person, animal or plant. They work with artificial cellular systems that only exist in Petri dishes and
laboratory test tubes and have nothing to do with what goes on inside organisms. If they want to prove what they say is true, let
them isolate and photograph viruses in blood or saliva samples! It is striking that today we have to wear masks because it is
said that the virus spreads like an aerosol and it turns out that no virus has ever been seen or photographed in saliva.
Point 7. Infection experiments are carried out on animals in order to cause symptoms similar to those ascribed to coronavirus.
The idea is to demonstrate that the virus spreads and causes a range of symptoms. This is done by injecting fluid into their
brains or by inserting a tube into their lungs. Well, what that causes is aspiration pneumonia, but not because the fluid they are
injected with has coronavirus in it: any sterile fluid would cause inflammation of the lungs (pneumonia)! Reading such studies,
one realizes that the symptoms described are caused by the cruelty of the experiment itself and not by the pathogen they are
supposedly inoculated with, be it "X" or "Y", HIV or SARS-CoV-2. Hence, here too, no control experiments are carried out.
Seven rebuttals and seven blatantly unscientific procedures. In the infection protection laws of many countries, scientific rigour
is demanded of all those involved, and this is being seriously flouted. There is no science here, but anti-science. The refutation
of the official version is on the table and this alone destroys any legal justification for the measures being taken.
Part 2
If there is one thing Stefan Lanka made clear in the first part of the interview he gave us, it is that the belief that there are
pathogenic viruses that cause disease is false. Moreover, he states emphatically that the genome of any of the viruses said to
cause disease has never been isolated and sequenced: influenza, the common cold, measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox,
shingles, mononucleosis, parvovirus, AIDS, Zika, chikungunya fever... But let's get straight to the interview.
-Dr. Andrew Kaufman states that with current technology it is not possible to differentiate a virus from an exosome, the
Perth Group once stated that HIV cannot be distinguished from an extracellular vesicle and Robert Gallo himself
published an article a few years ago acknowledging that viruses, retroviruses and extracellular vesicles are
indistinguishable. And that seems to support what you claim.
-Every two weeks I have a video call with Andrew Kaufman. His work is very important because he uses arguments from the
perspective of cell theory and pathology with the aim of reaching physicians, to speak to them in their "language", let's say.
From the point of view of cell theory we can say that this view is correct and that the cell fragments we see under the
microscope are no different from the supposed viruses. With viruses there is nothing clearly defined no matter how much we
are shown magnified pictures of particles that are supposed to be viral. A virus is always supposed to have a capsid - that is, a
coat composed of specific proteins containing nucleic acid of a certain length and sequence - but they never show that. It is
therefore important to explain to physicians, laboratory technicians and molecular biologists that many things in the official
theory do not add up. I personally do not like the concept of exosome but Kaufman is right in stating that what is defined as
exosome and has been observed and documented by many people is indistinguishable from the supposed viral structures
because they have never actually been isolated.
-From your current conception, how do you assess the conviction of some that SARS- CoV-2 is a chimera, a virus
genetically modified in the laboratory? This is the opinion of personalities such as Luc Montagnier, Chinda Brandolino
or Maximo Sandin.
-This is the right question in the right place. A certain Professor Zhang -from Shanghai- received from Beijing an assignment
from the head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention: he had to find the genome of a coronavirus of
zoonotic origin; specifically from a bat. And we know that he who seeks, finds. They provided him with a bronchoalveolar
sample taken from a patient with atypical pneumonia and within 24 hours he reported that he had found a virus associated with
bats, that its transmissibility was very low and that, in any case, the Wuhan meat market, the presumed source of the infection,
was already closed.
It normally takes a team of virologists two weeks to sequence and align the millions of genetic fragments that make up any
given viral genome. Zhang and his team accomplished that in 40 hours. Of course, the resulting sequence was very crude,
much unpolished by the usual standards, which led several scientists to raise their voices and say that "such a genetic sequence
cannot exist in nature; it must have been created in a laboratory". These critics are therefore right: it was created in a
laboratory, but not in a test tube but in a computer by means of sequence alignment using a bat virus construct generated years
ago as a reference template. And it could not be otherwise since there is no such thing, there are no viral genomes. The genome
they showed has anomalies that they could not polish since it involves a lot of manual work and compliance with a series of
rules that virologists have implemented over time. And all that was not done so the word spread that it was an artificial virus
created intentionally in a laboratory. No wonder Montagnier claims to have found sequences that are present in the supposed
HIV genome. After all, he carried out the same procedure to construct the HIV genome and, consequently, the supposed
SARS-CoV-2 genome has the highest proportion of sequences in common with the HIV genome. This is logical because they
are all made from the same soup, from fragments of common genes that are created when animal tissue is destroyed in a test
tube to which fetal bovine serum has been added, which in itself has an extremely high amount of nucleic acid identical to that
found in the human body. The sequences may be aligned differently and the result will look different but the starting pieces are
the same. With the genetic material used to sequence the SARSCoV-2 genome they could have sequenced and aligned the HIV
genome and the other way around. This is why Montagnier says he finds HIV sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and
other people say similar things with other genomes.
They believe that a virus is a unique and unrepeatable entity - it is one of their main hypotheses - but the reality is that a
complete viral genome, in one piece, has never been found. It is always constructed. It is a mathematical and statistical
construct. That is why not only do you find the same or similar sequences in different viral genomes, but if you develop a viral
detection test you end up with positive results when analyzing samples from animals, people or even plants. In short,
pathogenic viruses do not exist, they are a mental construct. Phages and the misnamed giant viruses are mini-spores that do
exist, that have been isolated and biochemically characterized... but they are not pathogens.
-We know that you have just published a book in Germany together with Dr. Ursula Stoll. Can you tell us who she is,
why you have written it together and what are the main topics you talk about in it?
-The book is titled Corona. Weiter ins Chaos oder Chance fiir alle? (Coronavirus: Descent into chaos or a chance for all?). I
have known Ursula Stoll for many years. She was a nurse in an intensive care unit for more than 20 years, experienced many
things there and accumulated unanswered questions until she discovered Dr. Hamer and after training in his system of
knowledge became a therapist. She writes very well, has already published several books and one day she approached me and
said: why don't we write a book together about what we know about viruses and the history of Virology?” She describes very
well, from the perspective of Dr. Hamer's theory, how diseases and symptoms blamed on pathogenic viruses actually originate.
I hope that a Spanish version of the book will be published soon. I assure you that I, personally, was greatly helped by Dr.
Hamer's discoveries. There is no better life insurance than studying his theories. It gives one confidence in oneself, in life and
in creation.
-In the book, you dedicate several chapters to Covid-19. What do you really think of the pandemic that you say is
destroying the world despite the fact that the official figures themselves deny it?
-The "pandemic" is the logical result of 2,500 years of materialism and the dynamics that have brought waves of pandemics
throughout history. Of course, I myself have a different opinion about AIDS today, for example; I used to think Robert Gallo
was a liar and a phony, but I no longer do. He was simply incapable of thinking outside the realm of Cellular Pathology.
Ivan Illich already predicted this in his book Medical Nemesis. As part of the economic system, Medicine is governed by the
same cost, revenue and profit patterns as other sectors and its companies’ profitability is expected to increase year after year.
That pushes pharmaceutical and all other companies related to medicine to exaggerate, pushes them to marketing and to attack
life with antibiotics.
I met Illich in person in 1995, the year of the reissue of the book he published in 1976 when he was still optimistic about the
future of humanity and believed that madness could be reversed, but even then he confessed to me that humanity was too
stupid to survive. He was an insightful and important intellectual.
For my part I intended to turn my magazine WissenschafftPlus into a platform with which to inform people and alert them that
either we stop modern Virology and Medicine or it will lead to mass hysteria and collapse. The campaign I have now
organized, called Three Red Cards to the coronavirus, aims to encourage people to question health measures and write to the
relevant authorities to demand answers to the seven points I mentioned above - in which virologists refute themselves - and
thus help to shake up the system.
-So you are optimistic in spite of the very serious situation we are living in right now?
-When I go out on the street and see so many people parroting the slogans of politicians and the media, I don't know whether to
laugh or cry, but lately I smile. The reason? The coronavirus crisis is a turning point, an opportunity for us to once and for all
draw the right lessons from history and bring humanity to a higher level of knowledge and consciousness. And it would not
have been possible without this crisis. Never have so many people listened to us as now.
The alternative is that we continue to destroy the economy, destroy each other with vaccines and ruin people's health until
society collapses. The next step would be for China to take the ruins we leave behind and the survivors to learn Chinese and
wave the red flag.
The alternative is therefore clear: either we take on the lessons and stand up to our governments and make it clear to them that
the virologists have disproved themselves and what they do is anything but science or we just whine and moan while
everything falls apart. And for those who survive, let's learn Chinese! Because, to tell the truth, the smartest people have been
the Chinese. From the beginning they were aware of what was happening. They knew there was no contagious virus and so
they did a few local quarantines for a few weeks to calm things down, they sold themselves to the world as very efficient and
responsible people and, above all, they hardly used PCR tests intentionally. On the other hand, in the West, we provoked our
own pandemic with PCR tests while politicians, each one more idiotic than the next, took advantage of the situation to boost
their egos. Let us not forget that the epicenter of the pandemic was not really China but the Charité Hospital in Berlin where
Dr. Drosten developed the first PCR test - which the Chinese refused to use - and which we in the West have been using
millions of times a day for more than a year without questioning the validity of its results. And yet I am confident that we can
learn from all this and solve the crisis.
Such an important author as Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy already wrote in 1925 in his book Soziologie, im Kreuz der
Wirklichkeit (Sociology I. In the Cross of Reality) that the naive governments who fund science so blithely do not realize that
established science will never allow other conceptions or theories to grow and thus endanger its dominant position. The author
writes that mankind is trapped by the science promoted by governments and the media... and that real research and real science
are actively suppressed and censored in a headlong rush by the former to save face. In 1956 he wrote that scientists investigated
cancer according to the old-fashioned rules of Louis Pasteur, as if it were rabies. He who believes in the prevailing explanation
of cancer, who believes that the evil is spreading inside his body that the cells of his organism are out of control and have
turned against him, is also going to believe in "metastasis" that spreads through the air, in viruses. And this is the situation that
we have a duty to clarify. It is not only about viruses but about our conscience. Whoever believes in cancer in the way modern
medicine understands it believes in metastasis and in viruses? In the materialism we have been dragging along for 2,500 years
there is no place for reason, only for greed and the lust for power and recognition. Dr. Hamer already illustrated that if
someone identifies intensely with his work, with an ideology or with a theory, if someone attacks those principles with which
he identifies, he will react aggressively, as if his life depended on it. Many people can't stand certain things because their own
identity is at stake.
-We know that you two hold virologists, physicians and health authorities responsible for the current health crisis, but
above all Dr. Christian Drosten, whom you accuse of having designed the PCR for SARS-CoV-2 before the Chinese
team had even published its supposed isolation and sequencing! How can you decide which primers to use without
knowing the virus? What is striking is that the WHO has also approved six other PCR protocols with different primers!
Does all this seem trustworthy to you?
-No; of course not. The first part of the question I have answered already. Drosten developed his PCR test even before the
Chinese authorities agreed on the alleged viral origin of the atypical pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan. And before they published
any results and before they released the preliminary genetic sequences associated with the alleged virus in question - which
were incidentally modified three times before being officially published - Drosten already had his PCR test ready and was
distributing it around the world. His friend and business partner TIB Molbiol developed the "primers" for the test. TIB Molbiol
also works for Roche, which holds the patent for the rapid PCR test. So you can see how the interests are interconnected.
The CEO of TIB Molbiol went so far as to say on TV that they sent the first PCR test kits to China for free for humanitarian
reasons. And how did they know that such a measure was necessary and that the virus was going to spread? They have always
sent "screening tests" for viruses wherever they suspect a supposed virus might "spread". They did it with the alleged outbreaks
of the previous SARS-CoV, Zika, swine flu virus... Nowadays the laboratory that first sequences a suspected viral genome and
develops the "primer" for its detection test is practically the market leader.
The WHO was quick to endorse the Drosten test and later endorsed others that were based more on sequences published by
China (contrary to Drosten) but these sequences are equally artificial and do not correspond to reality. The templates of those
screening tests contain about 300 nucleotides but actually sequence only two fragments of about 150 nucleotides. In short,
there is nothing complete there, not even a supposedly complete gene belonging to the viral genome that they claim to have
"isolated". These detection tests have nothing to do with what they define as SARS-CoV-2 virus, since according to them the
complete genome has almost 30,000 nucleotides. And we should know that the way PCRs are designed and programmed, they
can give positive results without the sample analyzed having any trace of nucleic acid.
PCR is programmed with specific "quantification cycles" and any scientist familiar with the technique will tell you that with
more than 20 cycles the results are prone to error. In fact from 30 cycles onwards the test is considered to be "dirty" and the
results unusable because the detection of sequences is severely distorted. And from 40 cycles onwards the test can be positive
without any of the programmed sequences being found in the sample to be analyzed. Well, the Drosten test has 45 cycles and is
programmed in such a way that a certain percentage of tests are always positive. It can be programmed at will so that all
passengers on a cruise ship are "positive"!
Doctors who do not believe the charade try to protect their patients and either send samples of non-organic fluids to the
laboratory or try to swab the patient's mouth very lightly to avoid pulling out too much tissue. Many physicians know that all
this is crazy but keep quiet so as not to lose their jobs. PCR has nothing to do with the virus they are talking about.
-In fact, those who claim that the reliability of PCR is null say -among other things- that the test uses as primers genetic
fragments that are present in more than a hundred microbes and in the human genome itself. But if that is so, why
don't they all test positive?
-Before the Chinese and other researchers created these genomes, they removed all known sequences. What happens here is
that long sequences are discarded that the computer detects as being from microbes but smaller fragments are found in the viral
genome they build. This is obviously not discussed. I repeat: all known sequences that are available on the internet are removed
from the set of what has been sequenced and only then alignment begins. This is why so few actual known sequences are found
in the virus genome and only those that were unknown at the time of creation are found. The known ones cannot be found
because they were filtered out and what later appear are only a few fragments since the length of their sequencing is only 150
nucleotides. Large pieces of microbial genetic information never appear due to the technology used which carries out a
conceptual mathematical sequencing of the virus genome.
-We have not been able to find a single article describing the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 and neither that of any human
coronavirus. And we have conducted a thorough search....
-And you will not find any publication describing the isolation of a viral structure because such a structure does not exist. It
was invented by computer programs. It was not found in humans or animals by isolating it. Earlier I said that
Chinese virologists used as a reference for the conceptual construction of the SARS-CoV-2 genome a coronavirus genome
supposedly found in a bat but that genetic sequence was generated years before in the same way: conceptually and by
computer. And so on...
-In fact you do not believe that vaccines prevent diseases and that it is an uncritically accepted myth based on a concept
of health and Medicine that has turned out to be wrong. On the other hand, you are one of the few scientists who defend
the vision of life - and therefore of health and disease - postulated by Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer. To what extent do you
agree with him?
-Thank you for this very important question. For me it is not a "myth" that we believe in the effectiveness of vaccines. It is a
core belief of our culture. Since Democritus and Epicurus, 2,500 years ago, our culture has conditioned us to believe in defects
and, of course, in transmissible defects. And from this thinking inevitably results the conception that if there is an evil there is
also an "anti-evil", that in front of the poison that makes us sick there is the antipoison that heals.
From this perspective the concept "myth" is true but not entirely correct since it is not a myth. The prevailing concept of health
and medicine has no other explanation for the phenomenon according to which different people in a family or children in a
school class get sick simultaneously or consecutively: it has to be a contagious pathogen. There is no other option. When one
excludes from one's theory of life any hint of conscience or soul, one has no choice but to think and act in this materialistic
way: "I have a defect or a poison has invaded me, I need an anti-poison".
No less than Plato warned already in his time, as I said before, that the doctors of his time did not understand most of the
diseases because they focused on what they saw, on the specific organ affected, forgetting that everything comes from the soul
and that it is necessary to treat the soul and the body as a whole and not to focus on the eye, the bone or the part of the
organism with the ailment, abstracting it from the whole. Can vaccination be useful? Not really, except in those cases where it
can act as Placebo. Mothers whose children are in bed with 38 degree fever are spared from panicking because they believe
that their child is protected having been vaccinated against everything. Vaccines contain a lot of substances and some of them
can mitigate symptoms such as fever or pain if the person is in the healing phase... but only because the substances interrupt
that phase.
This can only be understood in the light of Dr. Hamer's discoveries, but leaving aside these cases that have occurred to me -
quite forced indeed - vaccines are not good for what they are supposed to do because none of them protects against any disease.
Besides, vaccination is like Russian roulette: it can cause the death of one person in every 50,000 or more who are vaccinated.
Obviously there are many more cases of injury or disability. Many appear at the moment if the act of vaccination triggers a
traumatic conflict in the person, as Dr. Hamer has already explained.
On the other hand, if the content of the vaccine is not absorbed by the muscle and affects the nerves or enters the circulatory
system, it can reach the brain and cause a very dangerous intracranial pressure. This is a typical chemical poisoning effect
potentially fatal to a child.
As a person and as a scientist I cannot but reject vaccines but I recognize that the vast majority of the population has blind faith
in vaccines. Our challenge is therefore, on the one hand, to prevent governments from continuing with their mass vaccination
campaigns and, on the other hand, to show people the truth. If one understands the truth, one also knows that the prevailing
theory about viruses, bacteria and pathogens cannot be true and, consequently, one realizes that vaccines cannot work.
And now I will answer the second part of your question. This is the basis of everything: when you know the true biology, you
know that there is no place in nature for a pathogen that suddenly invades or consumes you from the inside. You understand
that every symptom and every disease has a specific cause that has nothing to do with what "official" medicine tells us. Dr.
Hamer's discoveries could be considered the "New Testament" of Biology. That is why I usually use the expression "Biology
after Hamer" with a double meaning. First, because unfortunately Dr. Hamer died almost 4 years ago; he left us too soon. And
secondly because his theory eliminated fear and evil from Biology. I consider him the most important scientist and biologist.
He was the first in 2,500 years - at least as far as Europe is concerned - to eradicate the concept of evil from Medicine and
Biology. No one has to fear disease ever again. With proper understanding all so- called diseases have a solution. Dr. Hamer
explains that what we call diseases are useful programs of nature with full biological meaning that are activated and developed
to help us cope with and survive extreme situations. Programs that becomes complicated when they are not understood. So I
appreciate the question because the Hamerian theory is very important and has proven to be totally correct - time and time
again - in practice.
-The WHO states on its website that vaccination is a simple, safe and effective way to protect us against harmful
diseases before we come into contact with them and they do this by activating our natural defenses so that they learn to
resist specific infections. What's more, they claim to strengthen the immune system. Is there any basis for this claim?
-A timely question. The basis of this idea is still a belief based on a concrete foundation: a poison is counteracted by an anti-
poison. However, most of the symptoms - such as inflammation, fever or exhaustion - manifest themselves in the healing
phase, as I said before. Medications can reduce symptoms and sometimes it may be advisable to administer them if the healing
phase is very strong (due to a very large conflictual mass accumulated during the active phase) but modern medicine focuses
on suppressing symptoms without realizing that health does not mean absence of disease. It focuses on looking for anti-poisons
to counteract the supposed poisons that make us sick. Coffee or alcohol can be poisons depending on the dose. If a 14-year-old
who has never tasted alcohol suddenly ingests a liter of vodka, he may die if it is not extracted from his stomach. On the other
hand, Boris Yeltsin, if he did not drink two liters of vodka, could not even give a speech in parliament. But not because he
drank an anti-poison to counteract a poison, but because his body had the necessary enzymes to process all that alcohol.
The materialism that we have carried with us for more than 2,500 years forces us to think in terms of defects and poisons. The
humoral or four humors theory that dominated medicine for more than 2,000 years advocated that if any of the four basic
substances in the human body - blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm - became unbalanced, it could become a poison and
make a person sick. And from there to the modern theory of viruses is but a leap. What the WHO claims is that the introduction
of a vaccine leads to a significant reduction in cases of the disease it is theoretically fighting, but this is not true. No serious
statistics support that claim. The diseases that the new vaccines were supposed to prevent were already at a very low level at
the time of their introduction. At the same level as today. And in any case no pathogen causes them so the vaccine is useless.
WHO is not composed of serious and responsible people. No one elects its members, nor is there any way to control them. It is
a lobby financed by the pharmaceutical companies and, as we say in German, Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing (I sing the
song of the one who gives me bread). It's as simple as that.
The WHO would be ridiculous if what it does were not so serious. Nothing it claims is scientifically proven. None of it. But it
accurately represents the state of our culture and people's beliefs. If I believe that I am nothing more than an accident and that I
am nothing more than a collection of molecules and I believe that nature is imperfect and cruel, then I believe that it can
randomly "betray" my body and cause me to get a deadly cancer. The truth is that we should not use the word cancer.
Mentioning it is like when in voodoo a needle is stuck into the doll of the person it represents.
Those who believe in metastasis, in cancer cells moving through the body to destroy it, also believe in "flying metastases" in
the form of viruses. The concept is the same and people believe both. And this is the challenge for all of us: how can I change
this? How can I contribute to making the truth known? Outside there is suffering, pain and hopelessness in many sick people
whom modern medicine does not know how to help; in fact it is just the other way around. Everyone knows someone in the
family or, at least, in the neighborhood or in circles of friends, cases of sick people in pain and despair. For most people it is
the palpable proof that evil exists, that life is a roulette of luck and that if it's your turn you are doomed. "Look: they died of
cancer in spite of all the medical advances, in spite of radiation and chemotherapy. Behind this misfortune and this evil must be
the Devil and he is stronger than God because God allows these injustices, this suffering and these deaths."
That is the message spread by WHO and it is a false message. There is hope for everyone. Healing is possible by applying Dr.
Hamer's discoveries.
-In your opinion, is the concept of immunity used by modern medicine correct?
-Poisoning is a real danger for the organism and in fact the organism produces enzymes to cleanse the body of poisons. Let's go
back to the example of alcohol: the young man who drinks a bottle of vodka may die if his stomach is not pumped because his
body lacks the enzymes necessary to process the poison that alcohol is. Yeltsin, on the other hand, had plenty of enzymes to
metabolize absurd amounts of this substance. Many famous people throughout history feared being poisoned - such as
Napoleon or Rasputin - so as a preventive measure they took small amounts of poison, such as mercury or arsenic, among
others. Thus the body reacted by generating enzymes that metabolized these poisons and repaired the damage caused. They
prepared the body little by little in case someone tried to poison them. And in this sense we can indeed speak of "immunity" to
toxic substances.
However, the theory of the four humors that I mentioned above and prevailed for more than 2,000 years led to Mozart's death.
At one point he was in a healing phase afflicted with multiple symptoms and the doctors concluded that he had an excess of
poison in his body; that is, his blood was stagnant and had generated a poison. The remedy then was to provoke the patient to
bleed to "extract" the poison.
The theory of immunity tells us that if someone has healed it is because his body has overcome the poison (in the form of a
virus for example). The aim of a vaccine is therefore to expose the body to a poison (in the form of a virus) in a preventive way
so that the body produces the specific anti-venom, which generates defenses and resistance. And many alternative theories to
official Medicine follow this same scheme of thought. Only Hamer has offered a totally different version.
Seamus O'Mahony said in his Can Medicine be Cured? that medicine has helped reduce infant mortality but then, on page 262,
he states that the pharmaceutical industry has destroyed medicine. And that is not correct. The pharmaceutical industry is the
consequence and not the cause. The ultimate cause is materialism - as the philosopher Plato once said - which Dr. Hamer put
an end to with his discoveries. The underlying idea is simple: poison that makes sick, anti- poison that cures. Applied to
viruses, the conclusion is that the virus is the poison that makes you sick and therefore we need the antibody, the anti-venom to
counteract it.
Seamus O'Mahony concludes by saying in his book that Medicine has no solution and only a war or a catastrophe can bring a
restart. For him there have always been two opposing conceptions of Medicine: one system that represses symptoms with drugs
- that of Asclepius (Aesculapius for the Romans) - and another - which he calls "Hygea's" (Asclepius' daughter) - that promotes
harmony with oneself and one's environment as the only way to preserve health. And this definition of health is very beautiful
and very true.
Part 3
The exclusive interview that Stefan Lanka granted to our magazine is undoubtedly the most extensive, clarifying and
controversial interview he has ever given. It is necessary to read it in its entirety to understand its importance and this is why
we did not want to summaries it. Without further ado, we present the third and last part of it, which was held in two long
sessions and will be broadcast shortly with simultaneous translation, since although he is fluent in English and has knowledge
of Spanish, he expresses himself better in his mother tongue, German. Obviously, divided into several videos, given its length.
Having said that, we will now transcribe the rest of the talk we had with him.
-The WHO claims that when we are vaccinated our immune system produces antibodies in the same way as when we
are infected by a pathogenic microbe, with the difference that, being dead or having been weakened, they do not cause
disease or complications, but only activate our defenses preventively. Does this theory make sense? And if so, for how
long would the organism maintain the memory" of that microbe? Because if it were for a short time only, the vaccines
would have to be periodically repeated. And if not, what are antibodies really?
-This question fits in perfectly with what we are discussing. What are antibodies? Medicine, immersed as it is in the idea of
poison and antipoison, believes it has found the anti-poison par excellence in small proteins defined as globulins. It postulates
that if someone is ill and then heals, it is thanks to his defenses, his antibodies. In fact when we are injured, the body produces
globulins and sends them to the affected area - which has lost energy and is becoming acidified - small globules that "flatten"
and intertwine to create new tissue and repair the damage. These globulins are defined as "antibodies" and are assumed to
perform a function that they do not actually have. The idea that there are specific antibodies that bind only to specific proteins,
as if each antibody were a key designed to bind to a specific lock - to the protein of the pathogen - is a flawed assumption and
any biochemist specializing in proteins knows this.
In a fresh blood sample, no specific binding can be demonstrated. This only works in test tubes and under very specific
conditions. There you can get a reaction with a few proteins and a binding globulin, a staining reaction. This is how ELISA and
Western blot tests work. And it was because of these tests that millions of people contemplated suicide when they tested
positive for HIV or suffered a chemical holocaust when they took AIDS drugs. In short, medicine claims that there are specific
antibodies that fight supposed viruses and this is not what happens in the body. It is one more self-deception to add to the list
that researchers have provoked with their laboratory work and sustain the erroneous theories that we have been assuming for
2,500 years. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy already wrote in 1956 - in the first volume of his book Sociology - that cancer was
being researched in the light of the erroneous theories of Louis Pasteur, as if it were rabies.
An important part of the current prevailing understanding of cancer is that the immune system is too weak to cope with it,
hence billions of euros have been spent on research into RNA vaccines for cancer which have achieved precisely nothing -
because the concept of genetics has now been totally disproved - but was the starting point for the SARS-CoV-2 genetic
vaccines. However, neither in the case of cancer nor in the case of non-existent viruses are vaccines going to do any good,
because the theoretical foundation of modern medicine is wrong at all levels, especially as far as the immune system is
concerned.
-Officially, vaccines are supposed to create antibodies against infectious pathogenic microbes that supposedly enter us.
Even if this theory were accepted, how do you explain "antiviral" vaccines if viruses are not microbes? Moreover, they
are not biological beings, so how can they make vaccines out of "dead" material if they have never been "alive"?
-The question is answered quickly and simply. Since 1954, virologists have believed that the cell death seen in a test tube after
introducing infected tissue is caused by viruses and that tissue breakdown implies that the cells are broken down into viral
particles. And this is a misinterpretation that has led Virology and Immunology astray ever since. To understand this, I must
first clarify something. In 1952 the - at that point - predominant school of Virology had been "given up". Virologists used to
believe that viruses were toxic proteins, pathogenic poisons that could multiply by themselves. That same year it was
discovered that protein synthesis always requires a nucleic acid and from this was concluded that this represents the genetic or
hereditary substance, the "blueprint" for the functioning of life. Until then, it had been believed that proteins multiplied by
themselves, but from that time onwards, nucleic acid was given center stage. This belief is still popular today, even though it
was proven incorrect in the year 2000.
The concept of "inactivated or killed vaccines" or "live attenuated vaccines” arose because scientists take the mixture of killed
tissue from a test tube and assume that it has been broken down by the action of a virus, and they use it as an ingredient for a
vaccine on the assumption that the virus is still present and active even though it is "weakened". This is called a "live
attenuated vaccine". Such scientists, however, overlook the fact that the tissue had actually died from starvation and/or
poisoning in the process of test preparation and not due to a virus. In fact, no control tests are ever carried out to determine
whether it may have been the method used that caused this result. What is certain is that the unfiltered mixture in the test tube
usually contains cellular debris from monkey kidneys - their tissue is frequently used in infection tests - and fetal bovine serum
- extracted directly and without anesthesia from the hearts of cow fetuses. This fetal serum is essential to their experiments
because it allows cell cultures - of monkey kidney tissue, for example - to decompose more slowly and give them time work
with them.
And this mass of decomposed cellular material is the centerpiece of "live attenuated vaccines”. If, on the other hand, they take
a particular protein out of the mix, and assume it to be belonging to a virus, they talk about "inactivated or killed vaccines". It is
interesting that these scientists define viruses as biochemically dead but then use such confusing definitions. Well, from 1954
onwards, the model for virologists to follow was that of bacterial phages, which have been isolated and found to always have a
nucleic acid with the same structure and length. Virologists hoped to be able to isolate viruses in the same way as phages but
this has never been achieved. Bacterial phages and the misnamed ‘giant viruses’ - like the one I first isolated 30 years ago - are
mini-spores and have nothing to do with the model viruses that virologists have developed.
-Some of the "vaccines" being “produced" for Covid-19 are drugs, not vaccines. In fact, it is acknowledged that they
prevent neither infection, nor the disease, nor transmissibility to others. How can one speak of preventive vaccines?
How can "effectiveness" percentages be given? Moreover, what do their manufacturers call "effectiveness"?
-It’s been almost 70 years that the world has believed in molecular genetics and the role of nucleic acid as a storehouse of
hereditary information, but it turns out that its role is a different one: the generation of energy in all living organisms. No
experimental therapy based on so-called genetic engineering has been of any use over the last 30 years and most of them were
stopped because either patient got worse or even died due to the drugs. Both the private and public sectors have invested
billions of euros in biotech companies with disappointing results.
Then one day, in Germany, someone in charge of one of those loss-making companies focused on mRNA-based cancer
treatments had the idea of redirecting the company's efforts to make vaccines against the alleged virus from China... before it
was even labelled as such. And that person went from bankruptcy to receiving the Federal Cross of Merit awarded by the
German government and is now announcing that we will have to be vaccinated every year because of the mutations of the virus
and that the use of the masks will be extended for another 10 years. But a) the vaccine cannot work because the virus does not
exist and b) what the PCR test detects has nothing to do with his definition of a virus, which is nothing more than a mental
construct. Moreover, the tests are calibrated in such a way that they always give a certain percentage of positives. They can get
100% positive results if they so wish. According to the prevailing theory, the messenger RNA injected with the vaccine
triggers an immune system response that produces antibodies, and immunity is achieved within 3-6 months. This is the theory,
but the reality is that it is not the mRNA that triggers the body's so-called immune reaction - i.e. the generation of antibodies -
but the nanoparticles. The body produces globulin to repair and rebuild tissues, nerves and blood vessels damaged by the
nanoparticles and this is misinterpreted as the body's immune response. The tiny globules flatten and intertwine in the affected
area and create new tissue to repair the damage; they are proteins that repair and rebuild tissue.
The mRNA itself causes less of an inflammatory reaction compared to the latter. A small part of the mRNA can penetrate our
chromosomes with as yet little studied long term consequences, and can enter sperm cells, ovaries or placenta causing
infertility, miscarriages or malformations. In the short term, nanoparticles are more dangerous and are responsible for thrombi.
In fact, they are not even declared as active substances, but are defined as "adjuvants", i.e. auxiliary substances that help the
real, active substance (nRNA) to penetrate into the nucleus of cells. Nanoparticles are extremely aggressive and cannot be
broken down chemically, so the body gets rid of them very slowly - if at all - and they cause inflammation throughout the body
if the muscle is unable to absorb the injection and its contents reach nerves or blood vessels directly.
And all this only to have the same champions of vaccination conclude that their vaccine is no longer effective, claiming that
new mutant strains are spreading in the population and that is why people are still testing positive and getting sick.
Scientists have been experimenting with mRNA vaccines in animals for years and have achieved nothing positive. On the
contrary, they have concealed the adverse effects of nanoparticles on animals and the malformations they cause in fetuses. No
vaccine study is done with a true placebo because the adjuvants are always in the injection; they call it a placebo because the
supposedly active substance is not in it.
They also carry out human trials, but they are cautious and go to poor countries to test their experimental vaccines. To Cuba, to
the favelas of Brazil, to deep Africa... In short, wherever there is no control and there is collusion with corrupt authorities. The
poor people they test the vaccines on are paid for it: a part in advance and the rest if after 6 weeks they stay healthy and can
themselves go and claim the remaining payment. Those who die or get sick are replaced by other family members in order to
get the money. Why are these experiments not carried out in front of us in developed countries? Why are they carried out
where there is no control? They go to the poorest and most marginalized areas where it will never come out, either because
they can hide it, or because people do not speak out for fear of reprisals or of losing the money. And on top of that, they are
shameless enough to say that they have done "scientific studies" to prove the safety of vaccines, but they won't tell you where.
They act brazenly and cruelly. It has to be said loud and clear.
-In Spain they are already saying that vaccines work in a certain percentage for a certain age group. Is there any real
scientific method that allows us to know if a vaccine works? Because neither antigen tests nor PCR are useful for that.
-No, not at all. Looking at scientific studies, it is impossible to specify which symptoms constitute the Covid-19 disease
allegedly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The list of symptoms is getting longer and longer. At the beginning, atypical
pneumonia was mentioned as a characteristic symptom, but at this stage any symptom can be associated, at one's convenience,
with Covid-19. The definition is constantly changing, and the claims that health authorities make about the effectiveness of
vaccines cannot be concluded from the studies they present.
-What is the difference between "RNA vaccines" - e.g. the BioNTech vaccine - "DNA vaccines" - viral vector vaccines -
and traditional vaccines such as, for example, live or attenuated vaccines used for measles or diphtheria?
-There are basically three types of vaccines. The first is the classical one, which can be the live attenuated vaccine or the killed
or inactivated vaccine, which we have talked about before and which we don't hear much about lately because they cost very
little to produce and are of little interest.
The genetic vaccines that everyone is talking about are mRNA vaccines - such as Biontech's - and DNA or viral vector
vaccines that integrate very quickly into the nucleus of cells, killing or damaging the tissue they are in, causing inflammatory
reactions that are then interpreted as an immune reaction to the vaccine.
According to the scientists, the mRNA does not act in the nucleus of the cell but in the cytosol, generating a protein that leaves
the cell and presumably triggers the immune response. In the case of a killed or inactivated vaccine, for example, the
supposedly viral protein to which the body will generate antibodies is administered directly.
In Germany, one person proposed to make a more traditional vaccine to combat the supposed virus that would cost only a few
cents, presented it to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute and the institute itself denounced him on the grounds that his studies had not
been authorized and that it was a crime!
Big pharma and state research institutes simply don't want competition. Why is that? For 30 years our states and other private
companies have been investing in genetic engineering with zero results. From these projects come genetic vaccines and
screening tests. These "professional test-tube shakers" have been paid billions and have barely offered anything in return
because the concept behind it does not work. It is wrong and has been disproved but everyone involved in this farce wants to
squeeze every last euro out of their investment before the system collapses.
What are the main dangers of so-called "RNA vaccines" and DNA vaccines, and are so- called "inactivated virus"
vaccines just as dangerous? What damage can nanoparticles do to the body, and is it true that they can affect fertility
and embryonic development?
-The mRNA vaccine contains a large number of dangerous nanoparticles, and no matter how much mRNA or what sequence it
has, the result is always destructive. Extending the above explanation, some of the mRNA may be transformed into DNA,
which can damage the nuclei of cells. If these are in the reproductive organs, they can cause infertility or damage to the fetus.
The risk of the long term damage due to mRNA turning into DNA may be lower than with DNA vector vaccines, but the
amount of nanoparticles that can themselves cause mechanical damage throughout the body is much higher.
We would like to point out that when editing this text, Stefan Lanka asked us to add a clarifying addition to what he said during
our talk, and so we have done so, although it will not appear in the video of the interview. This is the text: Nanoparticles are
used as vehicles for transporting mRNA from the injection site in the muscle to the nuclei of cells throughout the body. These
nanoparticles are highly toxic because they have a very high surface area to volume ratio and accelerate chemical reactions.
This acceleration of processes is called catalysis, and their toxic effect on the body is persistent because the body breaks them
down and eliminates them very slowly - if at all. Nanoparticles cause damage to the circulatory system, nervous system, brain
and liver. The combined effect of mRNA and nanoparticles increases the toxicity that these substances already have separately.
The increased combined effects of both substances have a negative effect on those parts of the body where they end up
randomly and unpredictably, but this problem is trivialized and both the individual effects of these substances and their
combined effects are then interpreted as "side effects" of the vaccine.
The DNA vaccine penetrates directly into the cells, damaging their nucleus, so with a much smaller amount of adjuvants it
does much more damage long term and the risk of affecting the germ line is significantly higher as it damages the sperm and
egg cells, preventing them from being fertilized, the embryo from developing, extreme deformities or miscarriage. That is why
I find it perverse that members of the German Green Party - which has a majority in the region where I live - boast about eating
GM-free organic food and then inject themselves with genetic engineering.
-How can laboratories so brazenly claim that their vaccines are safe and effective if there has not been enough time to
know that in any of the cases?
-They do not even claim to be safe. The "virus" has been given such a dangerous status that vaccines were approved to go on
the market as a matter of urgency without the studies required under normal circumstances. After all, this is the "crown" virus,
the king of viruses. And now they're talking about the supposed mutations, whether it's the British strain, whether it's the South
African strain... In Germany they say that the British strain is the predominant one now and that explains why people are still
getting sick after being vaccinated. To say that the vaccine is not only useless but that it is making people sick or killing them
is taboo in the media because many of them live off Big Pharma and, as we know, nobody bites the hand that feeds you. The
pharmaceutical industry does not even have to show that vaccines are safe as they have been relieved of that burden by
governments: they are exempt from lawsuits for damages. Governments have granted this and other prerogatives to
pharmaceutical companies that have achieved for their contracts to be secret.
-Can it be argued that laboratories are experimenting on hundreds of millions of people who have been tricked into
being human guinea pigs?
-Here I must break a lance in favor of the pharmaceutical companies. Seamus O'Mahony advocated the idea that the
pharmaceutical industry destroyed medicine, but that is not true. Ivan Illich already said in his 1976 book Medical Nemesis that
if medicine was not separated from economics, the logical consequence would be that the demands of the market would push
the industry to exaggerate in order to sell more treatments for more and more diseases, real or imaginary. The cause is to be
found in the nationalization of medicine and science in general, as Eugen-Rosenstock Huessy put it. A science under state
control is a "science of civil servants".
If we ask for the pharmaceutical industry to be condemned because it has violated its duty of supervision, the pharma industry
will say in reply: "We only do what the state prescribes, what state institutions prescribe for medical products and the safety of
vaccines”.
This is why it is not possible to hold the pharmaceutical industry responsible from a scientific and legal point of view. And
who is the state? The state is us and we do not control our political representatives in parliament, something the German
philosopher Immanuel Kant already warned about, saying that if the population does not understand the importance of laws
and does not get involved, it will be the minorities who make them. And that is exactly what is happening. I have already
mentioned the deeper cause of the situation we are in: 2500 years of materialism. Goethe was aware of this problem and in his
play Faust, when the peasants invite Faust and his secretary to a feast to thank them for their work, the protagonist refuses to
celebrate and says: "There was the medicine. Patients died and no one wondered who had been cured. With our infernal elixirs
we wreaked havoc in these valleys and mountains far worse than the plague. I myself gave the poison to many, they withered
away, and today I have to see how they praise the shameless criminal".
This is written by Goethe in Faust. Unsurpassed. If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. It can be predicted
that the next flu - after bird flu, swine flu and so on - could be fish flu. It will be enough to claim that a tuna or a salmon has a
virus that remains active in cans for human consumption for years. It's an idea for the next flu pandemic... Either we put an end
to this madness or we will be condemned to suffer imaginary pandemics indefinitely. I am however convinced that we can turn
the situation around. This is an opportunity to explain to people real Biology - the one Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer discovered - and
to abandon once and for all the dualistic "good-evil" view that dominates us. Humanity and the planet need it.
-The authorities have justified the approval of Covid-19 vaccines on the grounds that they are supported by the
risk/benefit ratio... Is this a gratuitous claim or does it have any basis, however small, in fact?
-The claim has no justification whatsoever and the studies that supposedly support it are very vague and inaccurate. As soon as
you look at them in depth you realize that they lack evidence to conclude anything about the efficacy of vaccines while there is
much evidence of harm. What happens is that the authorities force the language and the interpretation of these results and
journalists simply reproduce the information.
-In these circumstances, it is clear that we must do something. Can you tell us about the Red Card for Coronavirus
initiative that you are promoting in Germany?
-The balloon of the coronavirus is getting bigger and bigger and here I am, sitting on the shore of Lake Constance, with a
"needle" in my hand. The needle is the three "red cards" to the coronavirus. The balloon is coming towards me and I don't even
have to move. Once Germany introduces a compulsory quarantine or a curfew, I'll be the first to organize a party. When I get
the fine, I will go to court with the seven points with which virology has disproved itself. I am convinced that the balloon will
burst.
Virologists have provided us with three "red cards". The first comes from the measles virus trial. The jury found that the
seminal scientific publication in Virology, published in 1954 by John Franklin Enders under the title Propagation in tissue
cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles, which the plaintiff presented to me as evidence of the existence
of measles virus, does not prove the existence of measles virus. That publication on cell death in a test tube has been constantly
referenced by virologists ever since. Well, there is a legal principle according to which a judicial decision of a high court in one
European Union country is considered a binding precedent to be taken into account as soon as it is presented in another
European Union country. This is the first "red card", sanctioned in 2017 by a court decision of the High Court of Justice of
Stuttgart.
The second "red card" is the seven aforementioned techniques that virologists use in their studies and represent the definitive
refutation not only of their results but of Virology as a whole. Just go to the "materials and methods" section of any scientific
paper on SARS-CoV-2, HIV, Ebola or measles and calmly and dispassionately identify these seven techniques. Each one alone
invalidates the results and exposes their unscientific behavior.
The third card is easy to check: the lack of control tests. None of the techniques used by virologists are checked against control
tests to rule out that it is the method itself that causes the result, as in fact it does. This self-control prescribed by science
requires scientists to check their hypotheses and the methods they use. In fact, a publication can only be considered scientific if
it includes control experiments.
And what comes out of all this? Spain surely has a law to protect against infection or a law to deal with pandemics. In
Germany we have the Infektionsschutzgesetz which is the legal basis for all the measures the government has taken: mandatory
masks, quarantines and curfews, the imposition of tests and now vaccinations. Similar laws exist in all EU countries and
require those involved to act in a scientific manner. The scientific nature of their actions is a prerequisite. And this is not
fulfilled in any case by virologists, as is demonstrated by the legal precedent of the first "red card", by the self-refutation in the
seven techniques they use (second "red card") and by the lack of control tests (third "red card"). And if we all together make
this known, if every businessman, restaurant owner, trader, football team, musician or artist affected by government measures
spreads these verifiable facts we will put the needle in the balloon and the explosion will be a spark of truth that will light up
the darkness. This is the "good news" we bring and we are sure it will happen soon. And when the theory of viruses and
infection falls, in the resulting vacuum of understanding the question everyone will ask is: What makes us sick if viruses don't
exist?
The question is answered by Dr. Hamer who developed testicular cancer after the traumatic experience of the death of his son
Dirk and who eventually discovered his First Biological Law: that most diseases are caused by traumatic experiences. He
defined them as "biological conflicts" which, in a context of inhibition of action (we cannot escape from the situation or we
cannot solve it at the moment), lead to illnesses. These biological processes can occur at the individual level, affect several
members of a family, pupils in a school class, or even at the level of society. It is therefore to be expected, Dr Hamer
postulates, that once the coronavirus crisis is over, the millions of people who have been living in a state of constant alarm for
months - what he calls the conflict-active phase - will move to resolve the underlying biological conflicts and enter a "repair
phase". A repair that will provoke a wave of symptoms. We can predict that separation conflicts, fear for the integrity of
oneself and one's loved ones, conflicts arising from financial problems or loss of job will lead to numerous health problems -
especially among young people - because of the fear and frustration they have internalized for so long.
-Allow us one last question: what do you think is really behind Covid-19?
-Our history: materialism, scientific misinterpretations, the nationalization of science that blocks any new approach... Let's not
forget that these mistakes led to the AIDS "epidemic" with tens of millions of deaths: half committed suicide and the other half
died because of treatments such as AZT.
Also to blame is our conception of health as if it were just another economic sector that is required to grow because it leads to
exaggeration by making its sole purpose to increase sales.
When it comes to politics, we vote for parties and not for individual MPs who are directly accountable to their constituents. So
let us not be surprised if they then play games with us and put their hand in our pockets. It would be stupid for the owner of a
company, instead of managing it, to let it go bankrupt through lack of control and waste. Yet this is the case with our states:
they are run out of control. The fact that they do not collapse is a clear indication that more than half of the population is
honest, hardworking and responsible despite the political class. It is clear that our politicians are stupid and corrupt to the
core... and that mixture is dangerous. The prevailing materialism feeds the lust for power. If my life has no value, if we came
from dust and will become dust, if we are just an accident, then that way of looking at life pushes certain people to indulge in it
without a care in the world. The "good-bad" duality is also a product of materialism. What is not understood is labelled as evil.
Life and nature seem to be in a constant struggle between good and evil, between life and death as the Bible says. And Dr.
Hamer has delivered us from all this. I insist on the importance of his discoveries for our perception of reality, health and
illness. Hamer also found the causes of our mental health or behavioral problems, why someone is aggressive, depressive or
autistic ("If I don't understand this I don't understand myself and I don't understand others"). That their behavior is one way or
the other has an explanation.
Anyway, the coronavirus is a reboot in the history of mankind and now comes the positive part. The coronavirus is part of the
solution to our 2500 years of war, the war of good against evil. Eugen-Rosenstock Huessy helped me to form a positive view of
the future and that we are getting better. I owe my security for the future to him as well as my knowledge of historical
processes.
Siegfried Mohr, a good friend of mine, wrote the book Die Quellen des Gottlichen (The Sources of the Divine) in which he
expands on Hamer's theory of health. According to him, the phases of illness - the active and the healing phase - have also
played their role at the societal level in the historical development of mankind. People collectively have suffered the same
traumatic events, the same biological shocks due to wars, famines, natural climatic events such as volcanic eruptions or ice
ages...And when these people collectively resolve the conflicts, they experience the same symptoms - simultaneously - in the
healing phase. Siegfried Mohr adds that it is in this healing phase that it is decided whether society falls into irrationality or
remains sane.
If we didn't have the Internet, without Internet users interested in knowing the truth, in understanding it and spreading it, this
anti-life world view would have killed us all by now. Thanks to the Internet, we will prevail as a culture. Today we can spread
this information around the world in the blink of an eye and get enough people to know the truth. On the cover of our book
Corona: weiter ins Chaos oder Chance fiir alle (Coronavirus: descent into chaos or chance for all?) we show dominoes falling
one after another - symbolizing the chain reaction of our history - and a hand, the hand of all of us, stopping the dominoes from
falling. Who is behind that hand? All of us. The internet is part of the solution. We also have legal means at our disposal that
we must learn to take advantage of rather than spend the day bemoaning the situation. We are all in the same boat. If we start
from our Christian history of salvation - he died for us, he suffered - this eternal looking back with hatred is over. In the Old
Testament Lot's wife was told not to look back or she would become a pillar of salt. So let us move forward and learn to
forgive ourselves for our lack of knowledge - that is what has led us to the mistakes of the present - so that we can forgive
others. In Buddhism there is a praiseworthy character, the laughing Buddha, who laughed every night and every morning at his
own stupidity. So we have already answered the question of what is behind all this: our culture. And if we are up to the task
and learn the lesson, we will avoid a repetition of catastrophes and wars... and we will finally bring humanity to a new level of
development at all levels, leaving behind the "good-bad" duality.
-Do you want to add anything else?
-Yesterday I went to a concert - illegal, obviously - and it was my best Easter present. I ask that the musicians spread this news;
that is what we are missing. What we cannot express in words - the confidence, the joy, the determination... - can be expressed
in music. This is my appeal to artists, to musicians, to painters, to dancers... Take all these themes and transform them, express
them in ways that language cannot. This is the ultimate force for the future. Thank you for your contribution. Yesterday I
enjoyed the concert as never before, with goose bumps, a racing heart and confidence for the future. This is what I wanted to
add: my appeal to the artists, to all artists. We must take to the streets and make this knowledge thematic, make the truth known
by all possible means. All of us, together, will be the needle that explodes the balloon of this crisis and everything that is
behind it and that we have exposed here.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11